AddThis

Monday, 28 January 2013

Gigantomania and Overcentralisation: HS2

Today’s announcement of the proposed details of the second phase of the HS2 route has been touted by George Osborne and Nick Clegg alike
as a good thing, and a project that will assist growth, particularly in the regional
cities with which it will link up. The twin spurs leading out from Birmingham
will radiate up to Toton (near Nottingham), Sheffield and Leeds on one branch,
and to Manchester and Manchester Airport on the other. This apparent enthusiasm
should not come as a surprise, given that many politicians seem to possess a
weakness for prestige projects, and projects don’t come much larger or more
prestigious than HS2. Generally speaking however, such undertakings smack of
gigantomania, but whereas its construction may not prove to be as wasteful,
pointless or brutal as the White Sea Canal, it could yet prove to be more
costly and of less utility than the Channel Tunnel, which in itself returned a
loss for a number of years and came in well over budget, costing (according to one source) almost £12 billion rather than the originally projected £4.9
billion.

The current price tag attached to HS2 is £32 billion, but
what will be the real cost? How often do projects of this magnitude come in on
budget? In practice, it is likely that the budget required for the construction
and initial operation of HS2 will grow considerably as the years progress.
Beyond this of course, there are the additional costs incurred in terms of
environmental destruction and degradation, and the possibility that London will
suck yet more lifeblood out of our regional cities rather than pump forth a
surge of vitality. The thinking underpinning HS2 is distinctly metropolitan and
damagingly London-centric, and many voices of opposition have been raised
beyond those whom one would normally expect to object, such as 70 MPs.

Much of the thinking underpinning HS2 is fundamentally
flawed, for the assumption is that time spent travelling on trains is dead time
lost to productive employment, whereas we are now all aware that this is no
longer the case thanks to the revolution in communications technology that
allows us to work using our mobiles, laptops and tablets whilst on the move.
Thus, does cutting the journey time from Manchester to London from two hours
and eight minutes to one hour and eight minutes, and from Leeds to London from
two hours and 20 minutes to one hour and 22 minutes really merit a minimum
investment of £32 billion? These figures, particularly during our severely
straitened times, appear to be frighteningly wasteful. If perhaps, we could
guarantee that all of the steel, cement, signalling and rolling stock used in
the creation and operation of this proposed new network were to be British
produced and British owned, and the intellectual and manual labour employed
likewise to be domestically sourced, then perhaps a case of sorts could be made
for its construction, given the positive economic effects that it would
generate. However, the likelihood is that it will not be: the network’s construction
could well instead lead to an increase in the balance of payments deficit.

Furthermore, the routing of the new network means that the
‘Nottingham’ and ‘Sheffield’ stations will not be in the city centres, with
Nottingham’s being situated at Toton (no, I’d never heard of it either) and
Sheffield’s at Meadowhall (do they intend to try and lure away shoppers from
London’s Oxford Street?). This will mean that travellers will then need to
board connecting services to reach the city centres, so the time saved is even
less than that being claimed by advocates of the development. When will it be completed if all goes to schedule? Not until 2032 to 2033, apparently.

'Sheffield' HS2 Station: Meadowhall

Rather than ploughing such vast sums of money into an
economically wasteful, London-centric prestige project, this investment ought
to be used instead to upgrade regional rail networks and rolling stock,
re-opening a number of lines closed by Beeching where this is still practicable
to ease the pressure on our roads. Far more could be achieved in this way, and
would be far more likely to yield a meaningful improvement in transport for the
residents of our northern cities as well as laying the basis for prosperity in
the regions. This is something championed by the Campaign for Better Transport
which advocates the reopening of the Skipton to Colne rail link and the reinstatement of the line from Portishead to Bristol amongst others.

The opponents of HS2 have produced a website – StopHS2 –
which sets out a number of persuasive arguments and figures in support of the
campaigners’ assertion that the project is both wasteful and damaging. As yet,
a decision upon whether to allow the construction of HS2 will not be made until
next year, so although the go-ahead is not a foregone conclusion, the
campaigners are going to have a tough struggle ahead of them in fighting the
interests of the powerful lobby groups pushing for this ‘development’. Let’s
hope that they succeed!

8 comments:

Locating the Sheffield station at Meadowhall is idiotic. People will have to travel several miles north to travel south...along existing railway tracks that are already running to capacity due to the bottleneck on the northern approach to Sheffield Midland Station.

I don't know about the East Midlands station proposed for somewhere called Toton, but I'd like to bet that it's easier to get to either of the two cities from the other city than it is to get to this place in the back of beyond.

The best way to improve the economy in the North is to spend money on local or regional infrastructure plans. For example, the railway service as it is between Leeds and Sheffield is very poor, the worst service in Europe between two cities of comparable sizes. I doubt HS2 will improve this much...since it doesn't actually go to Sheffield.

I agree with you Lee: the quality of line and service between Leeds and Sheffield is shocking. Money would be better invested in improving services such as this at the regional level. As for placing a new station at Meadowhall, it's not exactly convenient.

In 1833 it was decided to build the Great Western Railway, by 1841 the London Bristol route was completed. That was achieved with Victorian rather than modern technology. After President Kennedy issued the challenge to put a man on the Moon, the Americans completed the task in less than a decade. 20 years to build a Victorian style track based railway in the 21st century means that something is seriously wrong with our society and Government! Given the exorbitant cost of HS2, it would be much better to experiment with tomorrow’s maglev technology, perhaps building the route underground. This would allow the UK to build new industries around a new technology and give us a definite edge on other nations. The UK Government lacks imagination and in my view competence! Infrastructure combined with reindustrialization is the best way forward for Britain.

To shave 30 minutes of the Leeds to London travel time when people would probably spend more than that time getting to Leeds when they do not for the current trains seems like something that makes no sense what-so-ever.

Things are a great deal more sluggish now Chris, but given the wrongheaded nature of this project, perhaps that equates to a good thing in this case. As for reviving the economy, reindustrialisation around cutting-edge technologies is required, but with respect to a subterranean maglev network, I think that we'd need to wait until we'd generated wealth from other new technologies before contemplating the viability of such a scheme.

Road_Hog is correct. Whilst we are in the EU all UK protests will not stop the thing. BBC's programme on the topic did not cover the valid points against it but on STOPHS2 nimbyism. This is typical, do not debate the valid points: smoking ban, so-call obesity, never debate the valid points, find a crutch and stick to it. Yvonne.

Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.